SECURITY BENEFITS OF 5G TECHNOLOGY

• This technology is not more harmful than what we already have and use (and that’s negligible).

• Strategically this technology would be said is needed to improve the communication speed, the communication capacity, the efficiency and effectiveness. It can transmit a greater amount of information with higher quality and higher speed.

• The main battle for dominance in 5G technology stems from the need for dominance in this area, which is expected to open up new opportunities and new jobs. Here, China and Russia delay in implementing 5G and are far behind the United States and Western European countries.

• Security risk – one of Huawei’s leading figures is a former colonel in the Chinese military. In authoritarian states like China, the so-called Quasi-private sector raises alarm over security, especially given the fact that most cyber attacks on the West come through the business sector, and are orchestrated by militarized attackers who often act “like patriotic hackers.”

• The appeal of the Secretary General of NATO to adopt 5G to level the standards is due to efficiency and effectiveness. With balanced standards and safety and security protocols, the risk of security and safety breaches is reduced. The possibility of manipulating and intercepting information depends on the standard.

Writing on the topic of 5G technology in our country and everything else lately is not because of the debate that is essential and oriented towards the disadvantages or advantages, efficiency and effectiveness of the application of this technology, but to clear the conspiracy theories, truths and manipulations, facts and myths or (for now there are no) possible corruption and some scandal. And in such a fog, due to the post festum approach and the need to discuss the topic, dilemmas, fears and mistrust arise. There are several reasons for this. First, man has always tried to explain what he does not know in a way that is easiest and most acceptable to him. Second, when there is a vacuum of something, that vacuum is filled by a line of lesser resistance than what will first appear.Third, from those who shape the debate depends a lot on how it will be conducted and what the consequences will be. And finally, it is very important in what conditions the debate will take place, whether in an open society democratically or in an authoritarian one. Those who debate or take a stand individually are not to blame for this. We are all to blame for this as a society. From the strategic leadership in the country, the professionals in a given field, academia, the managements of the leading companies in the private sector, the non-governmental sector and of course the editors of the media portals who have their own logic in reporting, and finally even those that are left to comment on the technology individually. But we will not deal with that because it is a topic of itself for which a series of articles are needed. Whether 5G network is harmful or not and all the technology that will follow this network will be left to others to talk. What I would say at this point or more correctly is to say that this technology is not more harmful than what we already have and use (and that is negligibly little).

The advantages of this technology are numerous. The quality of information (speed, efficiency, capability and security) will increase. In practice, this would mean, for example, that a doctor could operate without being in the room. Speed and latency of 4g (latency) are improved. On this way, every action from the doctor is transmitted almost simultaneously to the robot machine that performs the movements. With 5G, it will be possible to improve the driving of cars without a man. Yes, they are now in operation, but despite the drawbacks, they have limitation in design and performance. This will change significantly with 5g. The precision of drone technology will be improved especially in communication and of course the speed of reaction. Image quality fells in the package of this improvement. At home, as the need for a landline phone disappears, there will be no need for the Internet as we now know it. All things connected with internet and cool tools will be much easier to put them in a network.

Now, why is the fame of this technology so great.

There are strategic, legal and technical reasons for this. The strategic are in the race  who will be the first to introduce, improve and dictate the pace and standards. Here, China has previously advanced, so (only for now) the Western-linked conspiracy theories are falling apart because if hypothetically it didn’t work for anyone, it was the United States first and foremost, and the rest of the Western EU (just remember the boycott of Huawei). In this context, Russia also has an interest to “troll” because it is far behind and does not have the technology at the required level, so the myth of Russian superiority would collapse.

The main battle for dominance in 5G technology stems from the need for dominance in this area, which is expected to open up new opportunities and new jobs. The competition for dominance today has generally shifted to the field of standardization.

Hence, it is clear that the Western diplomatic circles, as well as the business communities of the West led by the United States and the leading EU member states on the one hand, and China on the other, are in a race for dominance in standardization bodies. These are the so-called 3 Generation Partnership Project – 3GPP and the International Telecommunications Union-ITU. Simply put, who dominates these organizations will dictate the approach towards standards, and thus the dominance of 5G development. In short, under pressure from geopolitical interests, delaying the adoption of one of the standards for several months could also reflect the loss of a particular manufacturer’s advantage in the industry. Such a practice cost Huawei the advantage over Apple (which was delayed with the development of this technology). However, in addition to business interest, there is also a security interest in the need to dominate the process of standardization of 5G technology. The spears of disagreement are most often broken over the approach of standardization in information coding. Coding and possible decoding clearly demonstrate the need for dominance and interest in it. The Chinese company Huawei has strategically invested in the development and advancement of 5G technology.

Although the American company Qualcomm largely represented and dominated the standards in this area, they lagged far behind Huawei. The company’s move has allowed it to introduce a new standard in encoding information known as “polar codes”. This way of encoding information is different from the one dominated by the West and, above all Qualcomm, and that is the so-called “Low-density parity check” – LDPC, or in free translation it means “approach of partial verification of low density.” This method of encoding information is also supported by Nokia, Samsung and Intel, as well as a number of other smaller companies in the Western Hemisphere. The standardization, which began in 2016, has largely focused on combating the dominance of access to the standard. However, once it became clear to the West what would be gained by Huawei’s dominance in this area, it meant turning on the red light and thus using these bodies in the business sphere to annul the advantage that Huawei created in the first half of the last decade. The West’s security argument for introducing the geopolitical dimension can also be understood if, for example, we know that one of Huawei’s leading figures is a former colonel in the Chinese military. Additionally, unlike the liberal approach of limited or almost no role of the state in business, in authoritarian states such as China, the so-called quasi-private sector raises alarm over security, especially given the fact that most cyber attacks on the West come through the business sector, and are orchestrated by militarized attackers who often act “like patriotic hackers.” The new selection of the leaders of 3 GPP and ITU, again contains the potential to change the balance and dominance in the race around 5G. For now, it seems that it is leveled, and mostly China and the United States are in a dead race. There is a need to write about this, but on another occasion. Anyways. Strategically this technology would be said is needed to improve the communication speed, the communication capacity, the efficiency and effectiveness. It can transmit a greater amount of information with higher quality and higher speed.

Security is also greater except when it is not! About this below in the text because everything is related to the need for security and safety. From a technical point of view, if the standards are different, the efficiency and effectiveness of 5G in terms of safety and security is reduced. One very important point here is that nothing in modern technology is 100% safe.

Since this is also the case with conventional communication technology, for example, it is always possible to accept a certain dose of risk or to see what is safer or less porous and suitable for abuse. In this context, 5G is a champion, if and only if it is implemented with an appropriate standard. Hence the thesis that technology is safe except when it is not.

The Secretary-General’s appeal to the adoption of the 5G to equalize standards is for efficiency and effectiveness (where safety and security go hand in hand with service quality and comfort). With balanced standards and safety and security protocols, the risk of security and safety breaches is reduced. Without it, 5G is more prone to attacks through several types. So, I repeat, the attacks and the possible risk of manipulating, intercepting or otherwise obstructing the information and thus compromising it is possible. What is the possibility it depends on the standard. If the standards are properly implemented, the possibility is reduced and vice versa. The vulnerability of the attacks to which this technology is most porous increases when there are no appropriate standards, and as possible attacks are the so-called attacks known as “fake base stations” known in this sphere as “Stingers”. Simply put, these devices lie the device that they are a base station and emit a signal to attract the device towards them. Once they manage to “seduce” the user’s device, the host of these devices increases the ability to control the information (wiretape, changes the content – manipulates it, etc.). An additional drawback is that so far there is research in which sophisticated attacks (which are difficult to perform in real situations) can degrade 5G into 4G or 3G to make it vulnerable. After using this attack, those who abuse it then take advantage of the shortcomings of the 4G or 3G network and carry out various attacks. This is another proof why 5G is better than 4G or 3G in technical terms, and consequently in security context.

As the biggest concern for 5G technology, hence, in legal terms, it should not be whether is harmful or not, because once again, it is just as harmful as what we use now, but how persistent the state will be in providing operators with this technology to be implemented according to the standards. In the race for prestige, mobile operators will implement 5G. If they make a mistake or cut back on investment and focus on profit instead of security and safety and standard, they will open the door to new vulnerabilities and dangers. One of such dangers may be a lack of user authentication or personal data protection (legal challenge). Because in such cases it is very difficult for the user to know how and for what his data is misused or to know if the company really implements the standards. Governments or authorities are the ones who should guarantee the standardization of 5G.

The author is known to the editorial office